The other big difference is that today the defendant has a lawyer that
generally takes the defense role more seriously than in the past.

Thanks,
Chris Austin-Lane
Sent from a cell phone
On Oct 29, 2010, at 6:21, mike brown <uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Bill!,
>
> But there's a world of difference between these 2 examples, and which also
> highlights the difference between beliefs based on superstition and
> scientific 'beliefs'. Namely, that one can be empirically tested with a high
> degree of predictability/certainty, and the other is based on nothing but
> faith (with mostly hit and miss results). A modern jury understands this and
> can rely on evidence provided by a DNA expert/science just as they do when
> they go to a doctor or fly in a plane.
>
> Mike
>
> From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 19:18:49
> Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> I would choose a western surgeon over a shaman. I trust DNA evidence more
> than cat entrails. But that's not the point. If I had lived 300 years ago I
> would have probably chosen a shaman over someone who wanted to open me up
> with a knife, and I would have believed a priest reading cat entrails before
> some crazy idea that people are made up of little invisible pieces that are
> unique.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of mike brown
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:27 PM
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Bill!,
>
> At a functional level, the majority of people will choose science over
> superstion because it is *seen* to be both effective and predictable - even
> tho most people don't know the minutae of its workings. Even tho you have no
> formal understanding of medical procedure, who would you choose to treat your
> appendicitis - a shaman or a western surgeon?
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________________
> From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 17:08:50
> Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> The point I was trying to make was that modern-day juries know nothing more
> about DNA than juries 300 years ago knew about cat entrails. They are both
> just taking the word of an expert witness. That is why I question why DNA
> evidence is given such a powerful role in our justice system.
>
> I doubt if we today "..tend to accept scientific evidence as being closet
> [sic] thing to 'truth'..." any more than people 300 years ago accepted
> without question the words of a priest.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of mike brown
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:19 PM
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Bill,
>
> The scenarios you present are so radically different that it makes me think
> I'm missing some finer, subtler point - but for the life of me I can't find
> it! A jury will take into consideration the standards/accepted know.ledge of
> the time when they make a decision. Ask someone today whether they would
> rather have anti-biotics or be bled by leeches and I think you'll know which
> way they'll decide *even tho* they aren't qualified doctors. Also, if the
> defence could bring in credible opposition to DNA then it would be done (I'd
> LOVE to see a creationist take the stand to argue against science!). I think
> I have a rough idea as to what you're driving at (faith) but these days we
> tend to accept scientific evidence as being tested (and peer-reviewed) to
> such a highly predictable degree as to be the closet thing to 'truth' as can
> be objectively judged/trusted. Hope that answers your question somewhat
> (considering I never got past 'sums' in high school science classes).
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________________
> From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 26 October, 2010 19:41:01
> Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> What is the difference between these two scenarios?
>
> 1. TODAY: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial by
> jury. Semen is found in the body of the woman. DNA is extracted from the
> accused and from the semen. A DNA expert comes into court and testifies that
> the samples are a match. The jury believes the DNA expert and convicts the
> accused.
>
> 2. 300 YEARS AGO: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial
> by jury. A priest comes into court and testifies that he cut open a cat and
> saw in the entrails that the man was guilty. The jury believes the priest and
> convicts the accused.
>
> And before you answer, do you really believe the members of each of these
> juries knows enough themselves about DNA or cat entrails to make a decision
> on anything else than just the testimony of the expert witness?
>
> ...Bill!
>
> From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogr! oups.com] On
> Behalf Of mike brown
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:29 PM
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Bill!,
>
> Forensic evidence is a specialised area for criminal lawyers so I'll tread
> carefully on this subject. Firstly, each case turns on its own facts so you'd
> have to go through each situation (regarding dna) case by case. Secondly, I
> don't think it's correct to say that any ruling is automatically over-turned
> because of dna evidence. True, there have been situations where a person has
> been exonerated, but you're correct to say that this doesn't prove the person
> is innocent. But this is just as true as when there is insufficent evidence
> to convict someone, but this doesn't equate to their innocence either.
>
> My opinion is that new advances in science are just as applicable in the
> court room setting as they are anywhere else. If you were wrongly convicted
> of rape 15 years ago primarily because a rapists mask was found in your
> possession, I'm thinking you'd be pretty happy when dna testing on the
> perspiration inside the mask didn't match your own. Even things like the
> saliva on the back of a stamp can go on to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt)
> who did or didn't send that stalking/threatening/murder letter. In my
> experience, most criminals are pretty dumb so dna evidence is much more
> likely to convict the guilty than release them and more likely to protect the
> innocent rather than convict them. Nothing is 100% failsafe tho.
>
> Mike
> ________________________________________
> From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 25 October, 2010 13:15:08
> Subject: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> In a previous post you indicated you had gone to law school.
>
> Could you tell me why (or at least give me your opinion as to why) DNA
> evidence seems to be treated as some kind of super-evidence in our judicial
> system? I thought there were only two types of evidence: direct and
> circumstantial. Why would DNA evidence be treated differently as some other
> kind of direct evidence, such as eye-witness testimony or fingerprints?
>
> Also, why are so many prisoners' convictions being overturned because of new
> DNA evidence? For example, if someone was convicted of murder, and a hair
> or skin or blood or semen sample taken from the victim shows DNA that is not
> the same as the one convicted, why does that AUTOMATICALLY overturn the
> verdict? The convicted could have still killed the victim and the DNA might
> have come from someone else also involved.
>
> It just seems like DNA is used like a trump card in our judicial system
> instead of just another piece of evidence to consider.
>
> Thanks.Bill!
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5560 (20101024) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5562 (20101025) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> h! ttp://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5562 (20101025) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5563 (20101026) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5563 (20101026) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.! com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5573 (20101028) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5573 (20101028) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5573 (20101028) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5574 (20101029) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5574 (20101029) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5574 (20101029) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>